2008 Competition Changes

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:59 pm

I stole this off the PDGA forum.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.p ... =0&fpart=1

Here is the official PDGA document listing the changes.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008 ... ummary.pdf

I copied it below.

What does everyone think about these changes?

Summary of 2008 Competition System Changes

1) Award points at all PDGA events including Majors.

2) Eliminate the Developmental Tier (D-Tier) and replace it with a PDGA Competition Endowment Program.

Comments:
The Developmental Tier was a great concept but the implementation was less than optimal. The new program will
be more flexible and will allow for a greater number of events to qualify including charity events and events in
developing areas.

3) Eliminate minimum payout percentage, minimum pro purse, and pro attendance from the tier requirements for
A/B/C Tiers and rely on added cash requirements.

Comments:
Making this adjustment will make the requirements for running a pro event clear, simple, and less dependant on
attendance.

4) Increase the added cash requirement for Pro B Tiers from $250 to $500.

5) Increase the cash requirement for Pro A Tiers from $1000 to $1500.

6) Add a new amateur division and adjust the ratings breaks. Please see specifics below.
Current Proposed
Division Ratings Division Ratings
Advanced 915+ Expert 935+
Intermediate 875 – 914 Advanced 900 – 934
Recreational < 875 Intermediate 850 – 899
N/A Enthusiast < 850

Comments:
Item #6 and #7 are designed to help with the “move up or move out” problem that exists in our current competition
structure. The current 950 to 980 rated player under 40 has a couple of options but does not have a home in the
current system. Their skill level has exceeded the current Advanced division but they have minimal chances at
cashing in the Open division. This modification will allow them to stay in the sport longer and provide the opportunity
to further develop their skills in preparation for the Open division. The renaming of the “Recreational” division to
“Enthusiast” is also more appropriate.

7) Allow amateurs to accept merchandise in lieu of cash when playing in Pro divisions.

Comments:
This modification is designed to complement the new amateur division and rating break adjustments. It will also allow
Amateurs waiting for the Am Worlds the ability to receive minimal compensation (in merchandise) while testing the
waters in the Pro division. This will also allow the opportunity for more women to compete and play together at smaller
events where division sizes are often a problem.

8 ) Allow tournament directors the ability to easily offer ratings based events within the current competition
framework. This can now be accomplished by offering the following five divisions that reference the PDGA Course
Design Guidelines.
Division Skill Level
Open Gold
Expert Blue
Advanced White
Intermediate Red
Enthusiast Green

carlbren21 · Post by **carlbren21** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:40 am

I'm unsure on my feeling of having another division between open and adv. While it will give the opportunity to others to win $ in the adv. division, I think you'll find it will significantly reduce payout in the adv/exp divisions since it is basically splitting them up. I enjoy having an even playing field, but also enjoy a large field. I definately like the idea of having more defined rating breaks in the divisions though.

Question: Is it required to have the new divisions, or just suggested?

scarpfish · Post by **scarpfish** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:52 am

I liked the three skill based divisions better. I prefer a larger field and feel this is going to cut things too thin.

Besides, I wonder how many players will actually be playing in the 'enthusiast' division since the fee for non-current & non-member players is going up to $10. At least half of the rec division in most tournaments are non-members.

smitty · Post by **smitty** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:03 am

As far as I can tell, you are required to have the "Expert" division.

It will be the job of the TD, to make sure people are in the correct division. You probably will be able to trust 95% of the people once they understand what is going on.

The idea is take those 4 or 5 people who win every event and make them their own division. They will not "make" more then last place cash in Open, so they will maybe decide to move up.

I think it is going to be a pain in the ARSE for the first few months of the season.

smitty · Post by **smitty** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:10 am

Just did a quick look, it will effect the following people in Kansas.

Robert Hammersmith 969
James Guy 957
Bren Nordgren 957
Brad Merys 955
Tim Senft 954
Ryan Orton 953
Dustin Widener 953
Jeremy Rusco 953
Austin Streit 953
Tom Butler 949
Kevin Kaiser 949
Nils Nordgren 946
Shan Mann 945
Brock Barrett 942
Randy Mattingly 942
Kyle Klinger 938
Dustin McDonald 938
Michael Schoenhofer 937
Adam Mosher 937
Andy Lewis 936

If you look, these probably are the people who won or placed well at most of the PDGA events in Kansas.

Friz-Rocker · Post by **Friz-Rocker** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:33 am

The PDGA is stupid.We need a statewide Kansas Discgolf Organization.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:38 am

smitty wrote:Just did a quick look, it will effect the following people in Kansas.

Robert Hammersmith 969
James Guy 957
Bren Nordgren 957
Brad Merys 955
Tim Senft 954
Ryan Orton 953
Dustin Widener 953
Jeremy Rusco 953
Austin Streit 953
Tom Butler 949
Kevin Kaiser 949
Nils Nordgren 946
Shan Mann 945
Brock Barrett 942
Randy Mattingly 942
Kyle Klinger 938
Dustin McDonald 938
Michael Schoenhofer 937
Adam Mosher 937
Andy Lewis 936

If you look, these probably are the people who won or placed well at most of the PDGA events in Kansas.

At 46 years young, I usually play advanced masters. With the new ratings based divisions, will I have to play advanced (expert)? I don't think so, but what do you think?

carlbren21 · Post by **carlbren21** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:46 am

That's a great question. Also, if we do offer an 'expert' division, and we have less than 2 people, what are the options for the 2 'experts' if the division isn't opened up?

My opinion is that unless it is a larger tournament (70+), the expert division will be very small (less than 10). I think a better idea would be to establish a rating that, when passed, would require a move up to the open ranks, not another am division. This is going to get pretty confusing for a TD. I'm sure everyong has there own opinion though.

MOthrows · Post by **MOthrows** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:49 am

From what I understand, it will be up to the t.d's discretion whether to offer the Expert division at their event.

MOthrows · Post by **MOthrows** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:59 am

Nevermind, I guess that it's not an option.

From the pdga site

ATTENTION ALL TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS:

Please note that the new competition system changes show what a TD can choose to do, not MUST do. There is absolutely no reason to begin offering multiple overlapping and redundant divisions of Expert Masters, Expert Grandmasters, Expert Women's Masters, etc.

You just don't have to offer Expert in Masters etc. etc. I guess this rule change is really going to complicate things until people get a chance to get used to it.

McCabe · Post by **McCabe** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:28 pm

Expert division is STUPID! imo

smitty · Post by **smitty** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:49 pm

Tom wrote: At 46 years young, I usually play advanced masters. With the new ratings based divisions, will I have to play advanced (expert)? I don't think so, but what do you think?

Expert Master I guess? If there are less then 3 of them, then they would probably get to pick either Open or Expert.

smitty · Post by **smitty** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:52 pm

McCabe wrote:Expert division is STUPID! imo

I don't know if it is stupid or not? I think that it gives the "Baggers" a place to "bag". Then when they aren't winning $200 worth of discs, they will start playing open. It also gives the people who are really advanced players a chance to cash, and not donate.

I do think that it will take some getting use to.

smitty · Post by **smitty** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:09 pm

Robert Hammersmith Monkey-Top 5 in every event played
James Guy NO EVENTS
Bren Nordgren Monkey 4 top 5 finishes (7)
Brad Merys Playes Open
Tim Senft 1 top 5 (3)
Ryan Orton 4 top 5 (11)
Dustin Widener 6 top 5 (10)
Jeremy Rusco 7 top 5 (17)
Austin Streit 4 top 5 (8)
Tom Butler 5 wins and a second in 6 events
Kevin Kaiser 7 top 5 (15)
Nils Nordgren 2 top 5 (7)
Shan Mann Plays Open
Brock Barrett Plays Open
Randy Mattingly Plays Masters
Kyle Klinger Plays Masters
Dustin McDonald 2 top 5 (5)
Michael Schoenhofer 2 top 5 (6)
Adam Mosher 0 top 5 (4)
Andy Lewis 2 top 5 (12)

Most of these guys dominated in the PDGA events they played.

Another thing to look at would be if they would have cashed in Open.

I don't think that they should have to come to the Open divison and donate. I also donate think they should take donations from the largest field at most tourneys.

I am sure there are some Open players that would be able to move down and make a bigger expert field.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:31 pm

smitty wrote:Robert Hammersmith Monkey-Top 5 in every event played
James Guy NO EVENTS
Bren Nordgren Monkey 4 top 5 finishes (7)
Brad Merys Playes Open
Tim Senft 1 top 5 (3)
Ryan Orton 4 top 5 (11)
Dustin Widener 6 top 5 (10)
Jeremy Rusco 7 top 5 (17)
Austin Streit 4 top 5 (8)
Tom Butler 5 wins and a second in 6 events
Kevin Kaiser 7 top 5 (15)
Nils Nordgren 2 top 5 (7)
Shan Mann Plays Open
Brock Barrett Plays Open
Randy Mattingly Plays Masters
Kyle Klinger Plays Masters
Dustin McDonald 2 top 5 (5)
Michael Schoenhofer 2 top 5 (6)
Adam Mosher 0 top 5 (4)
Andy Lewis 2 top 5 (12)

Most of these guys dominated in the PDGA events they played.

Another thing to look at would be if they would have cashed in Open.

I don't think that they should have to come to the Open divison and donate. I also donate think they should take donations from the largest field at most tourneys.

I am sure there are some Open players that would be able to move down and make a bigger expert field.

Actually, I played in seven events this year. One isn't posted yet. So, thats 5 wins and 2 seconds.

I have asked my question to the PDGA. I'll post the answer when I hear from them.